The Realism Error

[Vorxian]

So in a naturalist, or realistic world why do we still have unneeded events or material collecting as:

 

[Jex =TE=]

Yes, well stated.

Personally, I'd rather they figure out all of these gameplay mechanics that they want first, then build whatever lore around them as necessary to satiate those who need such explanations.

It IS a game. Gameplay must be king.

They both go hand in hand though don't they in games like this.

I think we can pretty much all agree that we don't so much get immersed in a game like Mario or Zuul (remember him?) but in a lot of games we want the experience to be as close to what it would be in RL a lot of the times say in racing games or flying - not always because a game like GTA can be as fun with less realism.

Dean whatshisname who made the DayZ mod wanted "Authenticity" not realism in his game so there's many names for basically say "I want a game to make sense to me and not have me thinking about stupid things in it"

Let's say you're playing BF1 and every 10 minutes, a clown face flashes on screen with a honking sound. To me, that would ruin the game for me as it would be ridiculous. In the same way, the magical AI in ED are as annoying and the more stupid things you put into a game, the more you think about them as they keep popping up and thus your immersion gets ruined.

It's too late now for them to think about the mechanics first which is what they should have done at the start but then we thought they did with the DDF. Here's what they said they were going to do with trading....

Elite Dangerous - Trading

It's been a good week for the internal process! Here's another finalized topic, thanks again for all your input.

Goals

Simple to use – the actual mechanisms of trading should be easy for the player to grasp. The complexities in trading come from the choices that the player makes.
Provide interesting choice – trading should provide the player with interesting, but understandable choices.
Risk/Reward – trading is a risk vs. reward activity and should provide the opportunity for players to balance risk with potential rewards.
Impact the game world – player actions should have a noticeable effect on the game world. They enable player choices to determine the fate of aspects of the galaxy.


Markets

Markets are where the majority of trading takes place
They can be space stations, very large ships, or any other suitable structure
Markets come in a variety of types which determine which goods can potentially be present – ie not all markets include all goods categories
Space Stations – trades commodities and essential ship supplies
Shipyards – trades limited commodities, ships, ship modules, ship supplies
Factories – Specialist markets for particular commodities.
Black Markets – private markets accessible based on player reputation, trades illegal commodities, requires contact to access, can be part of a legal market
Pirate Bases – ignore fines and bounties, commodities, trades illegal commodities, requires contact to locate
Smuggler Bases – ignores fines, but not bounties, trades commodities and illegal commodities, requires contact for location – the background simulation determines some properties of a market
The list displayed for the market is determined by:
Legality: Commodities of allowed types only are shown
Profile: Commodities appropriate to the location are shown
Supply/Demand: How much is for sale and what the current demand for an item is at the given price
Some markets will be indicated as specialist in some way. This usually means the availability of rare items.
Prices shown on the market:
Prices on the markets are fixed, based on the price for the displayed demand
Markets will have different modifiers and mark-up values
Players can attempt to change the offered price (for buy and sell) by contacting a dealer in a specific good. This can also mean that the supply (or demand) values can be exceeded – ie a dealer may be prepared to buy more than the demand level at a lower price. Specialist items that fall into a standardized category should be sold through a dealer as otherwise they will attract the standard price for their category.
Using the negotiation changes the price by a value derived from the trading reputation too – as long as the amount is worth their while (this will be a settable value – probably if over 50% of the market demand)
Freight missions available from markets for transporting goods for a reward
Missions to be discussed in detail in future topic.
Although a reasonable spread of missions will always be available.
To determine a market’s properties the background simulation takes into account the following system data:
Supply and demand based on market location, e.g.
Agricultural location
Supplies Food
Demands Machinery, Fertiliser
Politics/laws
Determines which commodities are illegal
Population size and standard of living
Increases supply and demand of specific commodities
Meta events like conflicts and disasters
Affects commodity availability and prices
Can be generated by player actions
Aggregated Player trading in the system
Market data availability
When docked all available market data is available
This may be modified by ranking
When in system market prices are available
Outside the system only general information is available
Player’s trade history is available in detail
Newsfeeds provide useful economic data for all systems
Market Data Content
Historical data will be aggregated
Full price data for limited time
Then aggregated for full timeline
Players can cancel a trade before leaving the trading screen
Players can dump cargos at substantially reduced value if it cannot be sold through the market normally.
Some dangerous cargos may need a fee to offload
Jettisoning cargos within a defined distance of a station is illegal


Commodities

There is a list of different commodities
Each commodity has a baseline price
This is the starting price for the commodity in this market
This value is modified by background simulation
This value is modified by player trading
Buy and selling price is modified by the quantity of a commodity being traded
Repeated sales of the same commodity by the same player in the same market will be blocked
There are caps on prices to prevent unrealistic extremes (no negative values)
Based on background simulation data, rare alternate commodities can be generated
These commodities’ value increase the further the player is from the origin system
Value rarity modifiers are capped
Quantities of commodities that are purchased are limited by the player’s currently active ship’s cargo capacity.
Modules can be traded (although not when equipped)
Some commodities require specialist ship equipment
Attempting to transport commodities of these types without said equipment has effects:
Spoiling – the commodity is ruined
Alteration – the commodity changes type
Contamination – the commodity becomes hazardous
Packets of information can be obtained and traded like commodities
Tradable information includes:
System locations
Market locations
Resource gathering locations
Mission/event locations
Information packets automatically update the player’s galactic map as needed when they are acquired
Using a purchased packet means it cannot then be resold.



Player to Player Trading

Players can trade directly with each other
The player trade interface is available when both players are docked at the same market
The player trade interface is available when two players dock ships
The player trade interface is a secure swap allowing players to transfer credits/cargo
Both players must accept the trade before it occurs
Acceptance must be redone by both parties after any change in the trade
Trading occurs in real-time and can be interrupted (for example by being attacked) unless taking place at a space dock
Either player can cancel the trade at any time up to the point both agree

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/6299-Elite-Dangerous-Trading

Here - take a look at the rest - all these stickies that show what we didn't get they ever have a fuel sticky talking about different grades of fuel we could have bought lol.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=36

- - - Updated - - -

does this boil anybody's blood? LOL

Frontier Employee

"Where we're going... we don't need eyes to see!" Revised Explorers in Elite

Hello all!
I've given Explorers a quick run through to add in some extra detail and clarifications, we're happy this one is going so well and please continue discussion!

In Elite: Dangerous explorers are players who travel out into undiscovered areas of the galaxy, hoping to find previously undiscovered systems and locations. Explorers scan and record data wherever they go, and can sell that data on to various interested authorities. Explorers can also sell on data they have discovered to other players, allowing them to sell the co-ordinates of a valuable find to the highest bidder, or keep their discoveries to exploit for themselves.

Explorer players must discover different points of interest using different methods

Explorer players’ main method of making money is through selling details of points of interest they discover
Points of interest players can discover include:
Star Systems
Dark Systems (systems without a star, but other features)
Stars
Planets
Asteroids, comets
Moons
Structures
Other Phenomena
These Discovered locations may include:
Secret Locations
Resources
Events/Missions (time limited and permenant)
Beauty spots (usually attached to other entities)
Messages/Beacons
Players explore to build up the details on their galaxy map
When starting a new commander the player will have some details on their galaxy map
This will allow the player to travel to any locations they have map data to, without having to explore
Players can buy map data from authorities to expand their ships computers library of maps
New map data will allow the player to travel to new locations without needing to explore
Map data that is bought from authorities is not to the highest level of detail and can be improved with player gathered data
Map data includes hyperspace routes to systems and major points of interest in that system

Players can use scanning equipment and probes to detect systems and record new hyperspace routes
Scanners are used to detect any nearby systems that are within the players jump range
Scanners will give the player a vague indication of the direction of a system
High end scanners can give the player a better details of the system they have detected (is it a star, an asteroid field etc.)
Players can then launch hyperspace probes that will give the player more information on the part of space they are looking at
Probes will give the player heat-map style data to help guide the player to the correct co-ordinates for a jump
Heatmap data might be ambiguous, creating skill based gameplay where the player learns to interpret the readings they recieve
Different equipment can determine the quality of heatmap data
Different probe ammo can provide different information, or react based on objects in the target system
Using the data they have gathered the player must align their ship as best they can with the target system and activate the hyperdrive to jump to the system
The player’s ship records data of any successful jumps the player makes
The pilots federation will always pay players for the first successful jump they make using the exploration method (If the player bought the map data for the jump they cannot sell the data), even if the player is not the first person ever to make the jump (the pilots federation use the data to improve their telemetry and keep maps up to date)
If the player is the first person to ever make the journey they receive a bonus for discovering the hyperspace route
The closer the player lines up their jump to the target system, the higher quality the data the players ship will gather on the jump. Higher quality data is worth more money when sold to authorities
If a player’s jump is not accurate enough they may suffer a miss jump
Longer distance jumps require a higher level of accuracy
A systems contents may also affect how accurate a players jump must be to avoid mis-jumping



Players use scanners to detect points of interest within systems
The player’s scanners detect various points of interest around the player
It takes time for players scanners to detect points of interest
Player’s proximity to a point of interest can affect the time it takes to detect
Proximity may often have risks associated with it - Solar Radiation for example
Players ship facing can affect the time it takes to detect a point of interest (e.g. pointing my ship at a undiscovered point of interest will allow me to scan it faster)
Different types of points of interest can require different player actions to detect
For example to detect a mineral rich formation of asteroids the player must launch probes around an asteroid field
The probes provide a cross section from their perspective of the asteroid field they’re launched at
Each additional probe the player uses provides more details on the target asteroid field
The player uses their scanner to view the data from the probes, and must tag the areas with the highest concentration of minerals in the field
Once this process is complete the point of interest is completed
The quality of the players scan of the area affects the value of the data
The quality of the player’s scan can affect the amount and type of materials found in the asteroids
Players can sell the information that they discover through these methods
Players will have to travel back to sell the data they acquire while exploring
The first player to sell/discover the information recieves a greater reward
Information by become redundant from time to time as the galaxy moves and it can then be resold



Players can sell information they have gathered to other players as well as authorities. This is done through a trade interface similar to the trade goods trading interface. Players can sell hyperspace routes from their location to any single system they have explored to. The purchasing player then offers a price (this can be 0 if it is a gift), and if both players are satisfied they agree to the trade. Players can also trade in system data including locations of points of interest using the same method.

Players can take photographs (essentially screenshots) from their view ports (with and without cockpit and GUI etc)
Player photographs can be submitted to a regular photography contest
Players can only submit one photograph each
Players can vote on a selection of the best photographs
The player(s) who get the most votes wins the competition
The winner gets a (in game) cash prize (plus prizes for 2nd 3rd most weird etc.)
The photograph (and other user submissions) will be used in appropriate places in the game (billboards, news papers, etc.)



Players who decide to go exploring are jumping into the unknown, and without high end kit, often with little to no knowledge of the dangers they are jumping in to. Alongside the risk of encountering hostility when jumping to an unknown system, explorers scanners attract a lot of attention, generating lots of heat. Explorer ships will need to be prepared to face hostile activity when exploring, and players need to be ready to fight for their claims or run for their lives.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-eyes-to-see!-quot-Revised-Explorers-in-Elite

and we get a button..... immersion killer.

 

[Kayweg]

Yes, well stated.

Personally, I'd rather they figure out all of these gameplay mechanics that they want first, then build whatever lore around them as necessary to satiate those who need such explanations.

It IS a game. Gameplay must be king.

I think i figured it out.
It's not a game in itself, it's a sim.
A sim that tries to simulate a computer game...

 

[BurnyBurns]

does this boil anybody's blood? LOL

Seriously?

I mean, I give Frontier a lot of abuse for what I perceive sometimes comically poor game design (and even more abuse for community white-knighting to excuse it by lore, consistency or other such things), which I think could've been done better (ship transfer times, bending over combat ship players to watch more loading screens etc.), but in order getting angry because all of this is not in the game, you'd have to assume there is some possible alternate reality where all of this was in the game at this point.

Unless we liberally assume however that Frontier's devs are twiddling their thumbs during at least half of their working hours, none of all the things you take from the DDF sound plausible, by the only realistic metric we can apply: The game's state today after about 4 years of development since the kickstarter and the pace at which they add updates. Yet, even what is in your list, is orders of magnitude more complex than what we have today. Same with Star Citizen, which goes far beyond what these DDF posts propose. Remember the cocktail minigame? You relatively quickly develop ideas, but turning them into software takes a hell of a lot of time and working hours and you either compromise to meet a set release date or... keep going for as long sa it takes to finish everything or as long as your finances carry you.


What makes you assume, that it's in any way realistic we got any of those in the game we have today? Or would you rather have Frontier take some more 2-4 years of development, triple the number of Elite devs, payed with who knows what, for their meagly kickstarter amount wouldn't even have got them to the 2014 game's release state, if they hadn't self-financed a good portion of it.


That ship has sailed as well. From here on it's about asking for sensible things to be added and the lacking things to be expanded an taking care, that not one threadbare game design workaround in this evolving game be preserved, just in order to support another threadbare game design choice or workaround.

 

[Roberlin]

If you are going to introduce "telepresence" at that level, does that mean that none of us are actually flying any of our ships? We're simply sat in a darkened room on some station, telepresencing into our ship? (Consistency).

We are lying in a pod filled with liquid, cables sticking in our heads and arms. "The Matrix" is a documentary.

 

[Jex =TE=]

This is my issue as well. I have been glossing over the holes, but the more there are the more difficult it becomes, and when I can't do it anymore it will be time to uninstall the game.

I can live with the instant unlimited range telepresence, but I sure as hell don't like it.

- - - Updated - - -



But the lore, peoples ability to suspend their disbelief and immersion are all linked. To suspend your disbelief there need to be ways to do that within the existing lore of the game, and that helps with the immersion as well.

They are all connected. There are already holes in the lore, but I can gloss over them, but the more there are the more difficult it is to suspend my disbelief in a game, and the more difficult it is to get immersed.

If they wanted to make multicrew a minigame without any lore involved, there are far better and easier ways to do it.

One of the glaring holes in the lore is RNGineers. You grind for weeks to get parts which you may or may not roll lucky and then your ship blows up and suddenly your insurance company has an unlimited stock of all your "unique" modded parts somehow.

 

[Xender]

2.3 telepresence solution - win win:
It would be better if players could have "employees". It will be based on similar system to hiring crew SLF pilots, however that kind of NPC crew can be provided to other players as part of multicrew. Thanks to "employees" system players could participate in instant multiucrew without telepresence - they just taking role of their employee.

In order to offer to someone your employee, employee need to be not used right now by you for SLF or something else - this mean your NPC need to be stored at any station. Then you can put him in multicrew market and someone else (someone random or your friends) can hire him. Thanks to that you are able participate in multicrew via that npc and you are able to take money rewards for that as employer . This is also easy explanation for instant crew hiring / instant multicrew - once you put your crew member for npc crew market, this is not specified where he is, he can be anywhere because npc can "travel" wherever he wants, thanks to that we can assume that he is close to your friend/other player to initiate multicrew.

This will solve telepresence problem and will also be logically right with more advanced concept of multicrew when you on our own are on another ship.

I think it is good compromise between telepresence and notelepresence at all. It will also allow for instant match making but it is still open for more complex, your commander based multicrew - something more permanent and connected with Space Legs. I think this also fits well with ability to hire SLF pilots - my proposal wiil expand this system and merge it with multicrew.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Seriously?

I mean, I give Frontier a lot of abuse for what I perceive sometimes comically poor game design (and even more abuse for community white-knighting to excuse it by lore, consistency or other such things), which I think could've been done better (ship transfer times, bending over combat ship players to watch more loading screens etc.), but in order getting angry because all of this is not in the game, you'd have to assume there is some possible alternate reality where all of this was be in the game at this point.

Unless we liberally assume however that Frontier's devs are twiddling their thumbs during at least half of their working hours, none of all the things you take from the DDF sound plausible, by the only realistic metric we can apply: The game's state today after about 4 years of development since the kickstarter and the pace at which they add updates. Yet, even what is in your list, is orders of magnitude more complex than what we have today. Same with Star Citizen, which goes far beyond what these DDF posts propose. Remember the cocktail minigame? You relatively quickly develop ideas, but turning them into software takes a hell of a lot of time and working hours and you either compromise to meet a set release date or... keep going for as long sa it takes to finish everything or as long as your finances carry you.


What makes you assume, that it's in any way realistic we got any of those in the game we have today? Or would you rather have Frontier take some more 2-4 years of development, triple the number of Elite devs, payed with who knows what, for their meagly kickstarter amount wouldn't even have got them to the 2014 game's release state, if they hadn't self-financed a good portion of it.


That ship has sailed. From here on it's about asking that the sensible things still get added not one thzreadbare game design workaround in this evolving game be preserved, just in order to support another threadbare game design choice or workaround.

Seriously?

You think pointing at a ball in space is "exploration"? Do you think all the time they wasted coding RNGineers, CQC (4 concurrent users yesterday btw), PowerPlay and all the other nonsense they put in the game couldn't have been put to better use.

I think you forgot the £40 Million they made when they released the game BTW and like I said, other Developers manage fine and don't continue charging so unless you wish to make a special case for FDev, I don't know what you're saying.

Yes the ship has sailed most probably - imagine the game we'd had if they kept to what they'd promised to begin with - you know, the game they all tricked us into think they would make so we handed over our cash?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

One of the glaring holes in the lore is RNGineers. You grind for weeks to get parts which you may or may not roll lucky and then your ship blows up and suddenly your insurance company has an unlimited stock of all your "unique" modded parts somehow.

Yep, I don't like that either and was one of the reasons I didn't like the instant 3D printed ship and Commander with instant transfers. I would prefer that we got the same rated module back and the ingredients for another go at the engineers. Would make more sense and wouldnt bother me, but I could see a lot of others hating on that.

- - - Updated - - -

2.3 telepresence solution - win win:
It would be better if players could have "employees". It will be based on similar system to hiring crew SLF pilots, however that kind of NPC crew can be provided to other players as part of multicrew. Thanks to "employees" system players could participate in instant multiucrew without telepresence - they just taking role of their employee.

In order to offer to someone your employee, employee need to be not used right now by you for SLF or something else - this mean your NPC need to be stored at any station. Then you can put him in multicrew market and someone else (someone random or your friends) can hire him. Thanks to that you are able participate in multicrew via that npc and you are able to take money rewards for that as employer . This is also easy explanation for instant crew hiring / instant multicrew - once you put your crew member for npc crew market, this is not specified where he is, he can be anywhere because npc can "travel" wherever he wants, thanks to that we can assume that he is close to your friend/other player to initiate multicrew.

This will solve telepresence problem and will also be logically right with more advanced concept of multicrew when you on our own are on another ship.

I think it is good compromise between telepresence and notelepresence at all. It will also allow for instant match making but it is still open for more complex, your commander based multicrew - something more permanent and connected with Space Legs. I think this also fits well with ability to hire SLF pilots - my proposal wiil expand this system and merge it with multicrew.

The main issue I have at the moment is that they keep introducing mechanics that break the lore of the game and then try to shoehorn it in a really bad way. They should be designing game mechanics based around and enhancing the lore of the game.

The development of the game at the moment makes no logiocal sense to me.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

But the lore, peoples ability to suspend their disbelief and immersion are all linked. To suspend your disbelief there need to be ways to do that within the existing lore of the game, and that helps with the immersion as well.

They are all connected. There are already holes in the lore, but I can gloss over them, but the more there are the more difficult it is to suspend my disbelief in a game, and the more difficult it is to get immersed.

If they wanted to make multicrew a minigame without any lore involved, there are far better and easier ways to do it.

Yeah my post wasn't intended to argue against this point. You're right, lore is integral to a player's sense of immersion, just as narrative devices (read: storytelling) as well as consistency and the overall production values.

 

[micky1984]

I've read the points and counterpoints about realism going around. The polls, the feuds, the civil discussions. And I want to just drop an idea here as part of the ongoing discourse.

My thesis is simple: the claim to want realism is an error. The request actually being described by the ED Realists is for naturalism, not realism. And that difference is crucial to understand, because it resolves a fruitless and misguided dispute with ED Gamists.

What is the difference between realism and naturalism?

Realism is a style that is meant to reflect the hard realities of whatever is depicted. I'll make comparisons to visual art, because that's my wheelhouse. Realism is a "warts and all" style. It is an unflinching look at the way things are, without any adjustment or decoration beyond what cannot be gotten rid of in the medium. Paint is still paint, photos are still photos. For that matter, games are still games.

Naturalism is a style that sticks close to the appearances of the world, but smooths over some of the unpleasantness to create a more attractive experience. All those portraits of the famous and wealthy that dot our history, all those believable illustrations in books, all those landscapes, all those NASA Photos of the Day with color adjustments to make them more appealing wallpapers - those are all naturalistic. They show us things we immediately recognize because they're rendered believably, but are not interested in showing the blemishes or unappealing angles.

In short, realism is a style that unflinchingly shows what is, and naturalism is a style that shows what is believable.

How does realism versus naturalism matter in ED?

Because ED is a game, not a job or a lifestyle or something meant to be anything other than an entertaining diversion, virtually no one truly wants realism. Not even the ED Realists. We want the splendor and excitement of space travel, of starfighters, of stunning interstellar vistas. ED Gamists don't want to give up that level of game experience, either. On the other hand, neither ED Realists nor ED Gamists want the tedium of flight checks, weeks spent in dock for repairs, hours spent loading and unloading cargo, and so on.

What both ED Realists and ED Gamists want is a naturalistic experience of being a spacefarer in an open-world galaxy. We want a naturalistic style of play that feels like space without getting bogged down in the work that being a spacefarer would realistically require. The minutiae of space travel are papered over so we can get on with the experiences that are relatively high-yield with respect to enjoyment. Traders bang out trade routes, chasing credits/hour. For them, the game is perfecting a run from station to station in minimum time. Combat pilots "git gud" and play a competition within the believable but patently artificial physics of the game. Explorers become experts of navigating a galaxy map that is a naturalistic, procedurally generated extrapolation from real-world astrography and revealing the aesthetic treasures FDev has hidden within.

How does the view from naturalism help?

It gives us a more balanced viewpoint to do away with fallacious arguments. For example, ED Realists say, "If you don't like load screens and long travel times, it's not the game for you," because those things are "realistic." But, they're not. They're design decisions that need criticism to be improved and create a more enjoyable - even a more naturalistic - play experience. Meanwhile, the ED Gamists need to let up about "muh immersion," because we do also want to feel immersed in the fantasy of spacefaring in a 3303 that never will be.

In sum, naturalism is what we're craving in ED, not realism. The challenge is for us, as a community, to understand that this what we say we want and help FDev by providing feedback about how their design is creating or could create more immersive and enjoyable gameplay.

Realism compared to what? all those ships and space stations we have? not this is not a simulator its fantasy

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Seriously?

I mean, I give Frontier a lot of abuse for what I perceive sometimes comically poor game design (and even more abuse for community white-knighting to excuse it by lore, consistency or other such things), which I think could've been done better (ship transfer times, bending over combat ship players to watch more loading screens etc.), but in order getting angry because all of this is not in the game, you'd have to assume there is some possible alternate reality where all of this was be in the game at this point.

Unless we liberally assume however that Frontier's devs are twiddling their thumbs during at least half of their working hours, none of all the things you take from the DDF sound plausible, by the only realistic metric we can apply: The game's state today after about 4 years of development since the kickstarter and the pace at which they add updates. Yet, even what is in your list, is orders of magnitude more complex than what we have today. Same with Star Citizen, which goes far beyond what these DDF posts propose. Remember the cocktail minigame? You relatively quickly develop ideas, but turning them into software takes a hell of a lot of time and working hours and you either compromise to meet a set release date or... keep going for as long sa it takes to finish everything or as long as your finances carry you.


What makes you assume, that it's in any way realistic we got any of those in the game we have today? Or would you rather have Frontier take some more 2-4 years of development, triple the number of Elite devs, payed with who knows what, for their meagly kickstarter amount wouldn't even have got them to the 2014 game's release state, if they hadn't self-financed a good portion of it.


That ship has sailed as well. From here on it's about asking for sensible things to be added and the lacking things to be expanded an taking care, that not one threadbare game design workaround in this evolving game be preserved, just in order to support another threadbare game design choice or workaround.

you say that like the DDF was a bunch of fanboys (and girls) coming up with some pie in the sky unicorn ideas which simply would never be possible...... however this is not the case... each locked down Design Decision was signed off by a senior developer, and therefore I do not think it was unreasonable to expect something *similar* to what was in the DDF in *most* cases.

what we got in many cases is not even a mildly streamlined version..... look at wingmates... I can't think of another space game released in the last 20 years (discounting MP arena shooters, tho even EVE Valkyrie has them) that does not have npc wing mates as an option.

 

[B1rdy]

Very much this. But it's futile to wish for, as the ship has sailed. Elite is an expanded early access or 'game as a service' game. That means potentially severely unfinished release and expansion over years. It may even be the sole reason Elite Dangerous exists. But it also means there never is or was a chance of Elite being developed to completion and lore being only then written around the thing as a whole.

The problems start if people get completely attached to the status quo of the game and oppose change, even positive change.

That's a self made problem from FDev's policy. In fact this game is early access, in some kind of alpha state, since contend and mechanics are still being added and changed. 1.0 wasn't the finished game obviously, although they sold it as kind of finished. The most basic stuff was working.

@Topic: OP is right, no one wants to have realism, unless you want a true simulation. Which is obviously not archivable in a futuristic space game.
Naturalism and authenticity, which contain consistency, are the goals.

Yep, I don't like that either and was one of the reasons I didn't like the instant 3D printed ship and Commander with instant transfers. I would prefer that we got the same rated module back and the ingredients for another go at the engineers. Would make more sense and wouldnt bother me, but I could see a lot of others hating on that.

I tell you why. Imagine you ground for hours to gain the materials you needed to have enough rolls. You rolled several times and got a god-roll on your module and maybe a special effect. Now imagine you get destroyed and you special module is gone - terrible! It would be very frustrating and lead to more combat logging, as stakes are already quite high.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

They both go hand in hand though don't they in games like this.

I think we can pretty much all agree that we don't so much get immersed in a game like Mario or Zuul (remember him?) but in a lot of games we want the experience to be as close to what it would be in RL a lot of the times say in racing games or flying - not always because a game like GTA can be as fun with less realism.

Dean whatshisname who made the DayZ mod wanted "Authenticity" not realism in his game so there's many names for basically say "I want a game to make sense to me and not have me thinking about stupid things in it"

Let's say you're playing BF1 and every 10 minutes, a clown face flashes on screen with a honking sound. To me, that would ruin the game for me as it would be ridiculous. In the same way, the magical AI in ED are as annoying and the more stupid things you put into a game, the more you think about them as they keep popping up and thus your immersion gets ruined.

It's too late now for them to think about the mechanics first which is what they should have done at the start but then we thought they did with the DDF. Here's what they said they were going to do with trading....




Here - take a look at the rest - all these stickies that show what we didn't get they ever have a fuel sticky talking about different grades of fuel we could have bought lol.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=36

- - - Updated - - -

does this boil anybody's blood? LOL



and we get a button..... immersion killer.

Yeah, it's clear that significant compromises were made to get the game out on time. Exploration in particular (lol).

Much of the omissions, however, can be understood, e.g. player trading (as this would have ruined the BGS economy and facilitated Cr farming in the real world - see MMOs). So it's understandable and expected that there would have been changes from the original design proposal and the shipped product.

Tbh though, I'm surprised by how much of that was exceptionally vague and non-specific.

- - - Updated - - -

you say that like the DDF was a bunch of fanboys (and girls) coming up with some pie in the sky unicorn ideas which simply would never be possible...... however this is not the case... each locked down Design Decision was signed off by a senior developer, and therefore I do not think it was unreasonable to expect something *similar* to what was in the DDF in *most* cases.

what we got in many cases is not even a mildly streamlined version..... look at wingmates... I can't think of another space game released in the last 20 years (discounting MP arena shooters, tho even EVE Valkyrie has them) that does not have npc wing mates as an option.

I don't think that's what the poster you were replying to was saying.

Additionally, considering the game we have today, you can easily argue that it's very "similar" to what is in the DDF, bar a few omissions. It just depends how far you want to stretch the definition of the word "similar".

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

That's a self made problem from FDev's policy. In fact this game is early access, in some kind of alpha state, since contend and mechanics are still being added and changed. 1.0 wasn't the finished game obviously, although they sold it as kind of finished. The most basic stuff was working.

@Topic: OP is right, no one wants to have realism, unless you want a true simulation. Which is obviously not archivable in a futuristic space game.
Naturalism and authenticity, which contain consistency, are the goals.

I tell you why. Imagine you ground for hours to gain the materials you needed to have enough rolls. You rolled several times and got a god-roll on your module and maybe a special effect. Now imagine you get destroyed and you special module is gone - terrible! It would be very frustrating and lead to more combat logging, as stakes are already quite high.

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest, but I don't spend hours grinding for materials or hours rolling in the hope I get a god roll, got much better things to do ingame then that, i think that is more of an issue with the player.

At least you get a roll for free.

But it is an issue with the engineers. I Would have prefered a set of predifined modules that you needed to buy with credits and materials and an ultra rare item for the special effect. Would be much easier to balance as well.

 

[B1rdy]

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest, but I don't spend hours grinding for materials or hours rolling in the hope I get a god roll, got much better things to do ingame then that.
At least you got a roll for free.

Did you understand my point?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Did you understand my point?

I did yes. I revised my post to make it clearer.

 

[BurnyBurns]

Seriously?
...

Yes the ship has sailed most probably - imagine the game we'd had if they kept to what they'd promised to begin with - you know, the game they all tricked us into think they would make so we handed over our cash?

Yes, seriously. is "If they had kept to what they promised to begin with" some magic term to get more stuff done? The game released in 2014 measured by "What they promised to begin with" in terms of those DDF feature lists falls so hilariously short of them, that it's hard to imagine any amount of "keeping to what they promised to begin with" would've moved the actual product substantially closer to that proposed game. As you say, waiting for a trigger to scan an orb, is hardly "exploration". If that's what they get done within two years however among the other things in the game, it'll take them a hell of a lot more of time to get close to what was initially proposed.

Which is my point: We can only measure them by what they get released in what time. Other studios or games have no relevance whatsoever for how quick or slow Frontier are at developing features, unless there's an actually comparable game with very closely comparable features. Other studios don't develop Elite. Yet, you seem to expect Frontier to have released about three times the game we have even today, in 2014, by simply "sticking to it". That seems to me delusional.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Yes, seriously. is "If they had kept to what they promised to begin with" some magic term to get more stuff done? The game released in 2014 measured by "What they promised to begin with" in terms of those DDF feature lists falls so hilariously short of them, that it's hard to imagine any amount of "keeping to what they promised to begin with" would've moved the actual product substantially closer to that proposed game. As you say, waiting for a trigger to scan an orb, is hardly "exploration". If that's what they get done within two years however among the other things in the game, it'll take them a hell of a lot more of time to get close to what was initially proposed.

Which is my point: We can only measure them by what they get released in what time. Other studios or games have no relevance whatsoever for how quick or slow Frontier are at developing features, unless there's an actually comparable game with very closely comparable features. Other studios don't develop Elite. Yet, you seem to expect Frontier to have released about three times the game we have even today, in 2014, by simply "sticking to it". That seems to me delusional.

Max already told you they were all signed off by lead devs and then made no effort to even address those areas and instead, made up a bunch of rubbish nobody wanted and on top of that, gave us god awful AI. This is where the problem started and gets compounded on. There's simply zero ambition to make the game they said they were going to make and they then think they're going to sel la game they're making up as they go along - pie in the sky - the game is going to die this way.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

Max already told you they were all signed off by lead devs and then made no effort to even address those areas and instead, made up a bunch of rubbish nobody wanted and on top of that, gave us god awful AI. This is where the problem started and gets compounded on. There's simply zero ambition to make the game they said they were going to make and they then think they're going to sel la game they're making up as they go along - pie in the sky - the game is going to die this way.

Lol, c'mon... that's a little bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

There are lots of players who have come in long after the initial crowdfunding, fully unaware of the initial promises, who are happily enjoying the game for what it is now, as opposed to what they initially pitched it to be. So the game won't die as long as FDev keeps up with their consistent updates and keeps improving the game.

Currently, with as many flaws as Elite has, there's no real alternative on the market for this kind of high-end full-fat, space sim type game. Perhaps that's even part of FDev's problem (i.e. lack of competition means much less of an impetus to invest heavily in redeveloping the game significantly).

I can appreciate the frustration for players who expected big things from the initial crowdsourcing pitch and then were let down. But the fact remains that there are a whole swathe of new players ED has picked up along the way who are content with what the game is doing now and where it's seemingly headed.